Outcault Advertising Co. v. Bradley

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Outcault Advertising Co. v. Bradley

150 S.W. 148, 105 Ark. 50, 1912 Ark. LEXIS 379

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedOctober 7, 1912

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 150 S.W. 148 (Outcault Advertising Co. v. Bradley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Outcault Advertising Co. v. Bradley, 150 S.W. 148, 105 Ark. 50, 1912 Ark. LEXIS 379 (Ark. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Kirby, J.,

(after stating the facts). It is contended by appellant that it is entitled to the full amount specified in its contract for the service, and that the court erred in instructing a verdict for one dollar.

The statement of appellee, attempted to be introduced in evidence, related to a matter that he claimed was discussed before the execution of the contract, and as an inducement thereto, but it was entirely at variance with its terms, as expressed in writing, and no error was committed in excluding it from the jury.

“Parol contemporaneous evidence is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a valid written instrument,” and there is no ambiguity or uncertainty in the written instrument which would permit the introduction of parol testimony in explanation of it.

The advertising service having been furnished to appellee in accordance with the teims of the contract therefor, he will not be excused from the payment for same, as agreed, because he did not use it, but is bound therefor as though he had done so, it being placed at his disposal, as it was contracted to be. The amount of his liability is in no wise decreased by the fact that he declined to perform the contract, and the judgment should have been for the full amount thereof; $108.16, and the court erred in instructing a verdict for a smaller amount.

The judgment is reversed, and judgment will be entered here for said sum. It is so ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Kirby, J.,

(after stating the facts). It is contended by appellant that it is entitled to the full amount specified in its contract for the service, and that the court erred in instructing a verdict for one dollar.

The statement of appellee, attempted to be introduced in evidence, related to a matter that he claimed was discussed before the execution of the contract, and as an inducement thereto, but it was entirely at variance with its terms, as expressed in writing, and no error was committed in excluding it from the jury.

“Parol contemporaneous evidence is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a valid written instrument,” and there is no ambiguity or uncertainty in the written instrument which would permit the introduction of parol testimony in explanation of it.

The advertising service having been furnished to appellee in accordance with the teims of the contract therefor, he will not be excused from the payment for same, as agreed, because he did not use it, but is bound therefor as though he had done so, it being placed at his disposal, as it was contracted to be. The amount of his liability is in no wise decreased by the fact that he declined to perform the contract, and the judgment should have been for the full amount thereof; $108.16, and the court erred in instructing a verdict for a smaller amount.

The judgment is reversed, and judgment will be entered here for said sum. It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 S.W. 148, 105 Ark. 50, 1912 Ark. LEXIS 379, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/outcault-advertising-co-v-bradley-ark-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack